More than a decade after an alleged Rs.65 million misuse of public funds rocked the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), the unresolved corruption case involving former SLPA Chairman Dr. Priyath Bandu Wickrama has acquired a fresh and potentially more uncomfortable dimension.
The central question is no longer confined to what allegedly happened during the 2015 Presidential Election campaign. It is increasingly about whether Sri Lanka’s accountability system can prevent officials facing serious corruption allegations from returning to influential positions in strategically important economic projects before their cases are concluded.
According to the indictment filed by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), Wickrama, former SLPA Managing Director Nihal Keppetipola and former Operating Equipment Operator Rathnagoda Baranaduge Sanjaya Kumara allegedly participated in the unlawful deployment of 319 SLPA employees for political campaign activities.
The employees, who were expected to perform duties connected with the country’s crucial maritime infrastructure, were allegedly diverted from their official functions and used for political purposes.
The alleged operation was not merely a question of employees being absent from their normal workplaces. The prosecution alleges that their salaries and overtime payments continued to be financed from SLPA funds, resulting in an estimated Rs.65 million loss to the State.
CIABOC instituted proceedings in 2016 under Section 70 of the Bribery Act, with the case involving 10 counts.
Yet the passage of time has become one of the most striking features of the case.
What began as a major corruption prosecution has spent almost a decade moving through procedural complications and other delays before reaching the Colombo High Court for a criminal trial. The prosecution has reportedly listed 90 witnesses and submitted 17 productions, underlining the scale of evidence that must now be examined.
The latest controversy arises from Wickrama’s return to the corporate arena.
In 2026, he emerged as Chief Executive Officer of Clothespin Management and Development (Private) Limited, becoming associated with the revival of the Cey Laya commercial development within Colombo Port City.
That development creates an uncomfortable accountability paradox.
The same broad maritime and infrastructure environment connected to the earlier allegations is now also at the centre of a multi-million-dollar investment project involving negotiations with China Harbour Engineering Company.
There is, however, an important distinction: the allegations remain allegations until determined by a competent court. The continuation of the case does not itself establish criminal guilt.
But that distinction does not eliminate the public-interest issue.
Sri Lanka has repeatedly pledged stronger governance, transparency and anti-corruption safeguards. If individuals facing unresolved allegations involving public resources can move back into influential commercial positions without any transparent explanation of eligibility or due-diligence procedures, questions inevitably arise over whether institutional accountability extends equally to the powerful.
The Rs.65 million case therefore carries significance far beyond its historical value.
It now poses a contemporary question: can Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption architecture protect public institutions from the past while preventing the same networks from regaining influence over the future